Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of duty paid on clearance of goods could be denied limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 when the certificate for availing exemption under Notification No. 108/95 was produced later and the payment was claimed to be without authority of law.
Analysis: The goods were cleared without the requisite certificate at the time of clearance, so the duty payment by the manufacturer and its collection by the department could not be treated as unauthorised or without authority of law. The claim before the departmental authority was therefore one for refund under the statutory scheme and had to be governed by the limitation prescribed by the Act. The authorities under the statute are bound to act within the four corners of the limitation period applicable to refund claims.
Conclusion: The refund claim remained subject to the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the challenge to that condition failed.
Final Conclusion: The common appeals were devoid of merit and the refusal to disregard statutory limitation in processing the refund claims was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A refund sought before the departmental authority under the excise statute is governed strictly by the statutory limitation, and a later production of exemption documents does not convert a duty payment made at clearance into an unauthorised levy.